How much money was awarded in case 5385301?

Property Damage: $850.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5385301?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5385301?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13273517-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5385301?

Property Damage: $850.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5385301?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5385301?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13273517-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5385301 — Exemplary damages

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5385301 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5385301 — net $908.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Balance of bond held by landlord	$30.39	Balance of bond held by landlord
Exemplary damages: Non lodgment of bond	$850.00	Non lodgment of bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$908.39
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$908.39

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Preechapon Tovaranonte must pay [The tenant/s] $808.39 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The cross application by Preechapon Tovaranonte is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing which was held by way of video conference. The landlord did not attend. He was phoned on the number provided but the call went to voicemail.

The tenant had a tenancy of the premises commencing on 23 February 2025. She paid a bond of $750 to the landlord at that time. The tenancy ended on 8 November 2025 and the landlord subsequently refunded $719.61 of the bond to the tenant, retaining $30.39.

The tenant applied for payment of the $30.39 withheld by the landlord. She also applied for exemplary damages for non-lodgement of the bond. The landlord cross applied for costs to remove rubbish at the end of the tenancy ($138.00) and compensation of $1,500.00 for “inappropriate use of the public funds and the justice system”.

As mentioned, the landlord did not attend the hearing. His cross application is therefore dismissed. It also means that he has not established any claims against the bond. The tenant is therefore entitled to payment of the bond in full.

Should exemplary damages be payable?

There is no dispute that the bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre as required by section 19(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). Failure to provide lodge the bond in accordance with section 19(1) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.

The threshold requirement for the payment of exemplary damages is that the unlawful act was committed ‘intentionally’. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court held that this requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.

The landlord provided a written statement in which he said that he did not lodge the bond because of the “short term and practical nature of the living arrangement”. He said that the accommodation was intended to be temporary with “a simplified administration process agreed between the parties”. The tenant denied agreeing that the bond need not be lodged, and she was unaware that it was not lodged until speaking with Tenancy Services.

On the evidence before me I find the landlord intended to unlawfully retain the bond rather than pay it to the Bond Centre. It is not appropriate for a landlord to simply decide whether it is practical or administratively convenient to comply with the law regarding lodging of the bonds. The law is clear, the bond must be lodged within 23 working days of receiving it.

The effect on the tenant of the bond not being lodged is that she was required to make attempts to have the bond refunded to her when the tenancy ended and ultimately had to file this application to the Tribunal to have the remaining bond being retained by the landlord. I also take into account that it is in the interests of tenants that the Bond Centre holds the bond as a protection against a landlord’s unreasonable retention of it. I note too that the landlord did not lodge the bond for a previous tenancy the tenant had with him.

Taking into account all the circumstances I consider exemplary damages at the mid-range to be appropriate and order the landlord to pay the tenant exemplary damages of $750.00.

The tenant has been successful in her claims and is therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression

The tenant for a suppression order. Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply). The tenant has been successful and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the tenant’s name and identifying details be suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5385301 — net $908.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Balance of bond held by landlord	$30.39	Balance of bond held by landlord
Exemplary damages: Non lodgment of bond	$850.00	Non lodgment of bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$908.39
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$908.39

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Preechapon Tovaranonte must pay [The tenant/s] $808.39 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The cross application by Preechapon Tovaranonte is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing which was held by way of video conference. The landlord did not attend. He was phoned on the number provided but the call went to voicemail.
The tenant had a tenancy of the premises commencing on 23 February 2025. She paid a bond of $750 to the landlord at that time. The tenancy ended on 8 November 2025 and the landlord subsequently refunded $719.61 of the bond to the tenant, retaining $30.39.
The tenant applied for payment of the $30.39 withheld by the landlord. She also applied for exemplary damages for non-lodgement of the bond. The landlord cross applied for costs to remove rubbish at the end of the tenancy ($138.00) and compensation of $1,500.00 for “inappropriate use of the public funds and the justice system”.
As mentioned, the landlord did not attend the hearing. His cross application is therefore dismissed. It also means that he has not established any claims against the bond. The tenant is therefore entitled to payment of the bond in full.

Should exemplary damages be payable?

There is no dispute that the bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre as required by section 19(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). Failure to provide lodge the bond in accordance with section 19(1) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
The threshold requirement for the payment of exemplary damages is that the unlawful act was committed ‘intentionally’. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court held that this requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.
The landlord provided a written statement in which he said that he did not lodge the bond because of the “short term and practical nature of the living arrangement”. He said that the accommodation was intended to be temporary with “a simplified administration process agreed between the parties”. The tenant denied agreeing that the bond need not be lodged, and she was unaware that it was not lodged until speaking with Tenancy Services.
On the evidence before me I find the landlord intended to unlawfully retain the bond rather than pay it to the Bond Centre. It is not appropriate for a landlord to simply decide whether it is practical or administratively convenient to comply with the law regarding lodging of the bonds. The law is clear, the bond must be lodged within 23 working days of receiving it.
The effect on the tenant of the bond not being lodged is that she was required to make attempts to have the bond refunded to her when the tenancy ended and ultimately had to file this application to the Tribunal to have the remaining bond being retained by the landlord. I also take into account that it is in the interests of tenants that the Bond Centre holds the bond as a protection against a landlord’s unreasonable retention of it. I note too that the landlord did not lodge the bond for a previous tenancy the tenant had with him.
Taking into account all the circumstances I consider exemplary damages at the mid-range to be appropriate and order the landlord to pay the tenant exemplary damages of $750.00.
The tenant has been successful in her claims and is therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
The tenant for a suppression order. Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply). The tenant has been successful and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the tenant’s name and identifying details be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5385301 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5385301 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should exemplary damages be payable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should exemplary damages be payable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions